| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | Gah. Folks, the reporting thread is for reporting, not for soliloquy. |
Huh? Someone reports, people start discussing the matter at hand; that's how it's always gone. And I stand by the points I made in that "soliloquy"; the behaviour is inappropriate for an internet forum, where people converse and those discussions naturally meander: that's the nature of conversation. Certainly the assertion that "self-moderation" means "policing others" is completely spurious.
And look where that belief has taken its proponent: into dogmatic and frankly silly tail-chasing posts wherein he repeatedly alludes to threatened action based on the Forum guidelines, while completely missing the point of things that are said, and dissects every statement, killing the subject. I'm sorry you cannot see how he's playing the system.
@eeyrjmr: Use your real nick if you want to discuss things, and kindly edit your post simply to be @steveL; quote-spamming the thread is simply bad form, always has been.
@khayyam: Well said. You have more stamina for this sort of thing than I ever could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Certainly the assertion that "self-moderation" means "policing others" is completely spurious. |
The word "self-moderation" was used together with the word "community"; that is a quite common usage, do a search engine query for "community self-moderation" or "self-moderated community" and in some places it is called "community self-regulation" or "self-regulated community". As demonstrated in my previous post, the opinions are in no way deciding or policing over others; but used for others to take it into consideration such that we get back to a mild and calm nature, in this case this opinion is based on a misunderstanding as can be seen in my previous post. So, it's not even my opinion anymore...
Where are these times gone to? We've been going through this for half a year now. This last linked to post in particular clearly demonstrates similar behavior to the one you are claiming as inappropriate, as well as dictating what to say with "just bloody well say so", as well as what I should do per the "only use as a developer", ...; whereas you could have told me the factual reality instead of an objective claim of a denial in reality. Note that this last statement is an opinion; it is made to understand that your posts about my posts are similar to my posts about your posts, which is meant to clarify the point about "community self-moderation" above. As you can see, we are moderating each other; to bring things to a mild and calm nature, to resolve misunderstandings.
| steveL wrote: | | And look where that belief has taken its proponent: into dogmatic and frankly silly tail-chasing posts wherein he repeatedly alludes to threatened action based on the Forum guidelines, while completely missing the point of things that are said, and dissects every statement, killing the subject. I'm sorry you cannot see how he's playing the system. |
Which points were missed? Earlier posts in this thread, the reported thread and other threads reveal that I have heard and acknowledged most of them. Bringing the thread *gently* back on track is the opposite action of killing the subject, it has made the thread continue rather than kill it as you can see in the reported thread; the posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear, they are everything but dogmatic and threatening from what can be seen. These posts are asking as well as giving clarifications.
| steveL wrote: | | @khayyam: Well said. You have more stamina for this sort of thing than I ever could. |
+1 Thanks to khayyam for pointing to the misunderstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | +1 Thanks to khayyam for pointing to the misunderstanding. |
I disagree with your assessment. Your acting as if this was a slight misunderstanding when in fact it was a multi part pile up of a whole number of things pointing at your poor argumentation skills, avoidance, and general lack of care when it comes to the substance of what others write. Behind that was an almost blind and unreflexive sense of your own "constructive" contribution when what was seen was possibly the must nonconstructive and disruptive of behaviours. Whats worse is that you seem to have learnt nothing from it and continue with your disregard for both good reasoning and good manners (ie, acting as though it was just a simple case of me "pointing to the misunderstanding" when in fact it was a hard fought uphill battle to even have you stay within some recognised bounds of discourse).
| TomWij wrote: | | [...] As demonstrated in my previous post, the opinions are in no way deciding or policing over others; but used for others to take it into consideration such that we get back to a mild and calm nature, in this case this opinion is based on a misunderstanding as can be seen in my previous post. So, it's not even my opinion anymore... |
I don't even think I could begin to deconstruct this sentence as it seems to be taken from Alice in Wonderland. So, where exactly was this "demonstrated"? You mean the "given that you claim that I decide things [...]" switcheroo/redirection? As to your "opinion", did you notice how it became conflated with the rules/guidelines and where does this leave your almost unscathed sense of being correct in that regard ... given the extent to which you have used (whether wilful or not) myriad forms of sophistry throughout this thread, the reported thread, and your reports of "meta talk"? I assume that by disowning it as "not your opinion anymore" you are washed clean of the mud that you have dragged me through?
| TomWij wrote: | | Which points were missed? Earlier posts in this thread, the reported thread and other threads reveal that I have heard and acknowledged most of them. Bringing the thread *gently* back on track is the opposite action of killing the subject, it has made the thread continue rather than kill it as you can see in the reported thread; the posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear, they are everything but dogmatic and threatening from what can be seen. These posts are asking as well as giving clarifications. |
If these post "reveal" anything it is that you argue/discuss in a most nonconstructive manner, they are replete with attempts at misdirection, miscomprehension, and disregard for those you are (assumedly) in dialogue with. Rather than accept this, and learn from it, you are still presenting yourself as someone who's goal is simply to "bring thread[s] gently back on track". People misunderstand each other, this happens to the best of us, but this is not a case of misunderstanding, this is some stages beyond that and you are not willing to acknowledge this. You are also unwilling to acknowledge that by invoking the rules as you do you are applying a power abusively, and that hiding this behind an "opinion", while disregarding *how* it excercised, constitues part of that abuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | +1 Thanks to khayyam for pointing to the misunderstanding. |
I disagree with your assessment. Your acting as if this was a slight misunderstanding [...] |
Indeed, as we don't come to the same conclusion based on that misunderstanding, I see it as more than a slight misunderstanding; therefore I agree to disagree here with your viewpoint.
| khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | [...] As demonstrated in my previous post, [...] |
I don't even think I could begin to deconstruct this sentence as it seems to be taken from Alice in Wonderland. So, where exactly was this "demonstrated"? |
In my previous post, which is now two posts ago; this post.
| khayyam wrote: | | If these post "reveal" anything it is that you argue/discuss in a most nonconstructive manner, [...] |
Which post reveals this and why is that post most nonconstructive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | +1 Thanks to khayyam for pointing to the misunderstanding. |
I disagree with your assessment. Your acting as if this was a slight misunderstanding [...] |
Indeed, as we don't come to the same conclusion based on that misunderstanding, I see it as more than a slight misunderstanding; therefore I agree to disagree here with your viewpoint. |
You're engaging in logical recontexualising ... its an example of the sophistic reasoning I point to above. So, are you "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding" or not? You "disagree here with [my] viewpoint" which suggests no, but you "[...] see it as more than a slight misunderstanding", which suggests yes.
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | [...] As demonstrated in my previous post, [...] |
I don't even think I could begin to deconstruct this sentence as it seems to be taken from Alice in Wonderland. So, where exactly was this "demonstrated"? |
In my previous post, which is now two posts ago |
.
In that post nothing is "demonstrated" in regard to the act of "policing others", you are still framing it as "me expressing my opinion and trying to keep things calm, on-topic, etc" but you fail to include *how* it is exercised. When you (or anyone for that matter ... but more so you as your developer status makes the assertion have greater relevance) makes a statement (here are the rules, "keep on topic", etc) or hits the report button, it is *this* that constitutes "policing", you're attempting to exclude the "act" by replacing it with the oxymoron "your opinion".
So, when you write "[...] given that you claim that I decide things [...]" you show that you are not only using clever redirection (in the form of a spurious allusion to a "claim" I am making), but hiding the act.
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | If these post "reveal" anything it is that you argue/discuss in a most nonconstructive manner, [...] |
Which post reveals this and why is that post most nonconstructive? |
As I said "a multi part pile up of a whole number of things pointing at your poor argumentation skills, avoidance, and general lack of care when it comes to the substance of what others write". "These posts" refer to the sum total and it serves no purpose to break the discussion down in order to point to "which" post reveals this "the most". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"These times" were before I'd had much interaction with you. Even the very post you link to shows the typical self-deluded tail-chasing, as you try to cover inexperience with verbiage. "If i keep talking, and deconstruct the words, that's a contribution.." Exactly like the time steev called your entire discussion "bullshit."
And it's not "we" who are going through this: it's you. You've had similar pile-ups with several other people. Khayyam and I are just the ones who won't back down about it, as we're both fed up to our back-teeth of this arrogant, supercilious behaviour of yours. Other users have told us how fed up they are with you, and Khayyam somehow has the ability to follow your delusional tail-chasing, and point out the flaws in your argument in the context wherein you make it; a far more subtle mind than I. I've learnt GIGO from day one, and so just reject your stance for what it is. Garbage.
I'm not expecting you to take any of this on board any more: you've gone beyond the pale in so many regards, and yet continue to prefer to argue in circles, asking for examples of the behaviour as if you have no self-awareness whatsoever. It's a good way to keep winding up the other party, acting as if you really are that stupid, so that anyone either has to dig out those examples, and thus chase their tails with you even more, or you've painted them as unwilling to "engage in dialogue" (or some other bs variant) and can point to their inability to back up assertions with examples as indicative of the weakness of their position, and no doubt plan to use that in one of those disciplinary actions you love to allude to (if only people didn't keep pointing out your part in the car-crash -- as the driver.)
You're just playing the same games you've been playing for the last year or so. There is zero willingness on your side to acknowledge or concede that your behaviour is annoying. After all that's a deliberate part of the politicking, so the last thing you want is for that to be out in the open. AFAIC your behaviour is a disgrace, and you'd have been forced into a timeout at best, on any team I were involved with. With tirades from several of us, ringing in your ears, to leave no room for doubt as to the requirement for changes.
BTW, if we're alluding back to earlier times: remember the time I told you to be careful of people who whisper in your IRC? Clearly you weren't, as clearly you've been taking part in using the forums for a political campaign. I'm sure you think the whole thing's been amusing, but you really should consider just how much damage you have just done to your own reputation. Bravo.
Spare me the declamations of innocence; you're way past asking for good-faith for repeated, deliberate abuses of the forum. One day you'll look back at this with profound regret, as you realise the people who whispered in your ear did not have your best interests at heart. In fact they were playing you the same way you tried to play us, and all you are is another source of amusement, a minion at best. No, I'm not expecting some Damascene conversion. It won't be for several years at least, ime. As you head past 30, you will see many things in a different light, just as when you head past 40, or as when you hit (roughly) 17, 21 and 25. And at every turn you will be convinced of the "rightness" of your position.
Have fun "policing others" when you should be "moderating yourself." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | So, are you "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding" or not? You "disagree here with [my] viewpoint" which suggests no, but you "[...] see it as more than a slight misunderstanding", which suggests yes. |
The former leads to the latter; therefore, both are "no" due to misunderstanding.
| khayyam wrote: | | In that post nothing is "demonstrated" in regard to the act of "policing others", you are still framing it as "me expressing my opinion and trying to keep things calm, on-topic, etc" but you fail to include *how* it is exercised. |
That exercise is a question: "How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?"
| khayyam wrote: | | [...] "These posts" refer to the sum total [...] |
The sum total on my profile is over thousand posts; so, to gain understanding of what you mean, can you refer to a single revealing example post and state why it is most nonconstructive?
| steveL wrote: | | "These times" were before I'd had much interaction with you. [...] And it's not "we" who are going through this [...] Have fun [...] |
It is about us, as it takes two; just like others and me you can take a break or ignore, otherwise have fun repeating your opinion stepping further away from "these times"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navar
Guru
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Why does the whole systemd discussion remind me of this? |
Neddy, how could you take such a serious discussion and... ahaha 
It even ends in Reductio ad Hitlerum. How fitting. 
_________________
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | "These times" were before I'd had much interaction with you. Even the very post you link to shows the typical self-deluded tail-chasing, as you try to cover inexperience with verbiage. "If i keep talking, and deconstruct the words, that's a contribution.." Exactly like the time steev called your entire discussion "bullshit."
And it's not "we" who are going through this: it's you. You've had similar pile-ups with several other people. Khayyam and I are just the ones who won't back down about it, as we're both fed up to our back-teeth of this arrogant, supercilious behaviour of yours. Other users have told us how fed up they are with you, and Khayyam somehow has the ability to follow your delusional tail-chasing, and point out the flaws in your argument in the context wherein you make it; a far more subtle mind than I. I've learnt GIGO from day one, and so just reject your stance for what it is. Garbage.
I'm not expecting you to take any of this on board any more: you've gone beyond the pale in so many regards, and yet continue to prefer to argue in circles, asking for examples of the behaviour as if you have no self-awareness whatsoever. It's a good way to keep winding up the other party, acting as if you really are that stupid, so that anyone either has to dig out those examples, and thus chase their tails with you even more, or you've painted them as unwilling to "engage in dialogue" (or some other bs variant) and can point to their inability to back up assertions with examples as indicative of the weakness of their position, and no doubt plan to use that in one of those disciplinary actions you love to allude to (if only people didn't keep pointing out your part in the car-crash -- as the driver.)
You're just playing the same games you've been playing for the last year or so. There is zero willingness on your side to acknowledge or concede that your behaviour is annoying. After all that's a deliberate part of the politicking, so the last thing you want is for that to be out in the open. AFAIC your behaviour is a disgrace, and you'd have been forced into a timeout at best, on any team I were involved with. With tirades from several of us, ringing in your ears, to leave no room for doubt as to the requirement for changes.
BTW, if we're alluding back to earlier times: remember the time I told you to be careful of people who whisper in your IRC? Clearly you weren't, as clearly you've been taking part in using the forums for a political campaign. I'm sure you think the whole thing's been amusing, but you really should consider just how much damage you have just done to your own reputation. Bravo.
|
Numerous people here on the forums have had it with his behavior and he recently resurrected the "Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie" thread on the user ML to reiterate the same circular arguments he's made here, leading to yet another thread there originating about his misbehavior.
At what point does ComRel get involved? Does ComRel even care or are they stacked with insiders that favor the agenda, so they'll look the other way?
Tom recently private messaged me after the closure of one of the systemd threads and I felt maybe we had made a bit of headway in those private messages, but given the resumption of his usual behavior over the last week, whatever respite there was appears to have subsided. That said, I raised several concerns to him then about the political structure of Gentoo, particularly in relation to the cliques and one person having too much power by sitting on too many organizational level committees (as opposed to package herds).
Here's a piece of that discussion that I had sent him:
| saellaven wrote: |
Ah, yes... the eternal hope that maybe something can change years from now... Unfortunately, given the cliques, I don't see WilliamH getting the boot any time soon and I doubt he'll resign from his positions. I don't see his friends doing anything but covering for him even if all of this stuff is brought out, maybe even if he admits that he abused his positions. Instead, it'll be a matter of attacking the messenger.
WilliamH is the upstream of OpenRC and he's intentionally held it back from being more robust - I must assume it is either because he favors systemd more, given he is on its herd, or because his personal feelings regarding SteveL (edit: in regards to WilliamH rejecting SteveL's well tested /usr patch) make him a poor arbiter of what should be added to OpenRC. There is nobody to appeal to if he won't accept the patches.
WilliamH is a member of the Council, where he personally asked for and pushed the Council to make a decision that would harm the OpenRC, which he has intentionally crippled, to pave the way for Gentoo forcing systemd's technological and political limitations (ie, LP declaring that since he personally sees no need for ever having a separate /usr, he would remove the functionality supporting it from systemd, forcing everyone to adhere to his vision for what a system must look like), likely in an effort to eventually push systemd as the default on Gentoo. Why? Maybe he's bored with OpenRC or sees it as too much work given he can just let the systemd devs take care of init for him?
WilliamH is also a member of QA, where he could just as easily force politically driven agenda onto Gentoo... and, if appealed, it goes to the Council, where he also has a vote.
Such is the poor organizational structure of Gentoo. If WilliamH is improperly restricting OpenRC, appeal to QA, where WilliamH and/or the people that share that position with him, must vote for or against WilliamH, which can be appealed to the Council, where WilliamH also sits and the situation repeats itself or we could avoid QA and go right to the Council where, WilliamH sits. Hey, maybe we can take it up with ComRel, which again, shares a plethora of organizational and project level links with WilliamH.
Whether aware of it or not, in the past, you've contributed to the air that devs will not simply allow criticism of other devs, particularly in that thread where you kept trying to give me the run around with redefining words and moving goal posts. One of your defenses of him was that "it was the OpenRC lead that requested the Council vote on /usr..." while either ignoring or being ignorant of all of the things I mentioned (not only in this post, but there as well). And then you dangled yourself as being a liason between him and I over my concerns, only to back out on that too. And therein lies the perceptions that devs will simply circle the wagons for one of their own, fueling the tribalism between the devs versus the users.
Anyway, a single dev shouldn't be so connected that, if he is making poor decisions and/or abusing his power, there is no place to appeal to for an honest, unbiased review of those decisions. |
Also in that message
| saellaven wrote: |
As for logging having negative side effects, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If people are behaving badly, it should be public, particularly if they have commit access and could be an attack vector on every Gentoo system out there (ie, they are a dev). The Council log you linked to regarding SteveL goes on to address that a discussion of him was handled in private... and that alludes to the problem I'm getting at, in that too many decisions/discussions are held in private, particularly ones that have far reaching consequences or those that are predicated on the bad faith/bad behavior of one of the participants. Where is the technical review of the merits of a separate /usr and the fragility of initramfs (months later, people still regularly post breakages caused by it) that the Council MUST HAVE so carefully weighed before making such a decision? If they hadn't, then they were all neglectful, and dare I say, incompetent, in making such a vote, but where is the discussion so that one may properly point out the fallacies and flaws in the arguments they made to each other before deciding?
(snip)
If the Council (or QA) can't be bothered to measure the technical merits of a technical decision, but instead makes them based solely on politics or gut instinct, they are not fulfilling their duties. This is particularly troubling since they can enforce their will onto everyone else, even if it means causing not only technological harm, but direct harm to the community, as the separate /usr decision has done. |
In reference to how the systemd threads keep popping up, getting locked and popping up again:
| saellaven wrote: |
And it will happen... it always does. Things might quiet down for a week or two (or not, the petty stuff is still ongoing as of this morning in the related threads), but someone will come along in another week or two and re-ignite the whole thing from scratch. IMO, on the part of some of the people starting those threads, it's an intentional ploy to simply wear people down so they'll walk away rather than to continue to rehash the same debate that will inevitably get shut down when people start to complain again. And again, this whole thing in particularly goes back to the Council's decision to force a political decision regardless of the actual technical merits. Prior to that, there was no systemd/anti-systemd war, there were people that wanted to see systemd work better and people that didn't care about systemd so long as it didn't affect them. The war started when the pro-systemd faction decided to force the limitations of systemd on the people that were content to avoid it themselves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To that mailing list I've been subscribed for a long while; I've had the unread count in that mailing list go up over a thousand mails, posting in the thread as just the result of processing through all that mail. Note that a substantial amount of responses were made in other threads before and after responding to that thread. Note that I'm pro-choice, not pro-systemd (I use it because of two reasons; however, given MATE I might be able to ditch both those reasons and switch to Epoch or back to OpenRC if I need to); however, when a particular choice gets pictured in a different way than it is or an unfair comparison is made, I want such choice to be backed up and/or reconsidered instead of such information becoming a myth.
Let's take for example "OpenRC is undocumented"; well, yeah, that can be debunked with a few links as well as that given these links and some man pages we've got enough to be able to use it:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Category:OpenRC
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC/Baselayout_1_to_2_migration
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC
Given that systemd has become the hot topic; well, you can see, it gives birth to a lot of myths (next to things that are the truth [eg. upstream pushing] which I'll acknowledge or ignore). Given being pro choice; this also means that in cases were choice prevents proper usage of systemd (like having to do the migration, as opposed to it being a separate systemd stage3) is also considering, I would be concerned the same way if a systemd stage3 were to replace the OpenRC stage3 ("hey! there are a large amount of users that now have to do a manual migration. please bring back the OpenRC stage3...").
Where does it state that this is about my behavior? It is about multiple people, particularly because a lot of posts that not match the topic were made, some of which got personal. For the details, contact Helmut.
| saellaven wrote: | | At what point does ComRel get involved? |
ComRel is aware, as they have responded as part of the thread you link to; ComRel only gets involved when individuals have made a sincere attempt to talk with each other in private (take our private messages for example) prior to addressing them, or when repeated violations of the Gentoo CoC have been made. In both cases they can be contacted about the matter. Reading up on mail or using arguments are fine behavior; the arguments there are quite different than those here, whether they are circular or not is up for decision by our private conversation and ComRel. By all means, feel free to address me in private and elevate to ComRel if we don't get to an agreement about that particular thread; but I don't see what has been done wrong there, other than that an etiquette to CC people that participate received well in most other mailing lists has been received somewhat different here. Which I've adapted as soon as a few individuals raised that the etiquette on the mailing list is different.
| saellaven wrote: | | Tom recently private messaged me after the closure of one of the systemd threads and I felt maybe we had made a bit of headway in those private messages, but given the resumption of his usual behavior over the last week |
In the last half week I've not made any posts there besides here in the feedback thread and only recently in a thread to help someone write a positive position paper (where the arguments from the other thread were brought in by others misunderstood that help to be an opinion), as part of a break staying away from the forums as well as clarifying the misunderstandings here; as you can see, the specific systemd threads here on the forum have been avoided in the last days and will continue to be for a while. I've considered the break to have ended, as this meeting we're in is near its end; so, I'm back to solely giving support to the users, as well as join non-systemd discussions. The posts made in the half week before that, were opinions to help bring the thread back on track; which was received differently than intended to, it has eventually appeared to work.
| saellaven wrote: | | whatever respite there was appears to have subsided. |
After the thread has gone back on-topic, I've simply left it; I'm not even watching the topic anymore.
| saellaven wrote: | | That said, I raised several concerns to him then about the political structure of Gentoo, particularly in relation to the cliques and one person having too much power by sitting on too many organizational level committees (as opposed to package herds). |
+1 It was an insightful conversation.
Last edited by TomWij on Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6103
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting post, saellaven.
I wasn't aware that WilliamH had his claws into so many parts of gentoo.
One should not have so much power in a supposedly democratic system.
There are no checks and balances against his abuses.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | I wasn't aware that WilliamH had his claws into so many parts of gentoo.
One should not have so much power in a supposedly democratic system.
There are no checks and balances against his abuses. |
There are some checks and/or balances in place, summarizing them from the private conversation; up to you to judge their prevention effect: conflict of interest can prevent someone from voting whom would benefit from such vote, the QA team consists of ten people therefore his vote effect there is smaller, he isn't a council member for life so using the power in a different way than the distribution wants him to can cause a loss in votes in the next election. If you still think it is of a concern or that there is abuse thereof, then feel free to raise it to the Council; but I think his power is limited, and that abuse of it would be dealt with when it gets done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | I wasn't aware that WilliamH had his claws into so many parts of gentoo.
One should not have so much power in a supposedly democratic system.
There are no checks and balances against his abuses. |
There are some checks and/or balances which I covered in private, short summary: conflict of interest can prevent someone from voting whom would benefit from such vote, the QA team consists of ten people therefore his vote effect there is smaller, he isn't a council member for life so using the power in a different way than the distribution wants him to can cause a loss in votes in the next election. If you still think it is of a concern or that there is abuse thereof, then feel free to raise it to the Council; but I think his power is limited, and that abuse of it would be dealt with when it gets done. |
If I have to work with someone every day, I'm unlikely to strongly rebuke them when they screw up, particularly in public, where it will cause more embarrassment. When one person sits on almost every important organizational team, the last thing I'm going to want to do is irk them and lose their support if I need it on another level*. 1 vote out of 10 (or 1 out of 9 if they recuse themselves) is still a lot of power - see the US Supreme Court's power versus some random Congresscritter from nowhere.
If I raise a concern of abuse of power to the Council, how is the Council going to vote, given that roughly half of them sit on at least one other organizational level committee (QA, ComRel, Foundation, etc)? People are unlikely to volunteer to limit their own power and influence, particularly once they're already entrenched.
Frankly, in terms of the /usr vote, I find virtually the entire Council derelict in their duty since they did absolutely no public deliberation of the technicals, and, from what I've seen, WilliamH deliberately withheld knowledge of a more robust workaround from his fellow members. The Council declares that their opinions cannot be appealed... and why would they want them appealed? Why would they deal with someone calling out their abrogation of their responsibility when it's far easier to circle the wagons to protect one of their own? And who else has power to appeal a harmful decision to, when someone is so entrenched that there is no place to appeal to where they or a person that voted along with them doesn't also sit?
These are seriously important questions... and it's naive to simply brush them off with a "maybe the rules will change some day and maybe one day, said people won't be re-elected despite the cliques they form to empower themselves." I reiterate, this whole pro-systemd/anti-systemd war in Gentoo originated with WilliamH's sole decision as project lead to reject a proven patch in OpenRC and, instead, to use his power and influence on the Council to actively attack OpenRC on the behest of the intentional technological inferiority imposed in systemd. Despite initramfs being fragile, the automated tools to create one being immature at best, and the fact that months later, people are STILL having problems with their system not booting due to initramfs, the Council simply brushed it all off, never did any technical investigation of their own, and followed WilliamH's fraudulent and abusive lead (in the sense that he was dishonest with the Council in lobbying for their votes by not disclosing SteveL's patch).
* Say I sit on QA... if I repudiate a fellow QA member that also sits on the Council and then bring an unrelated issue to the Council, will the person I've called out make a fair vote or will they vote out of spite? As I also mentioned in that private message
| saellaven wrote: |
That aside, my point was that it seems, at least as an outsider, that WilliamH has himself buried so deeply into the organizational structure of Gentoo, that nobody would dare to touch him and risk the fallout that would come with it. Here in the US, the government committee that handles spending (the House Appropriations Committee) has a rule that, except for 5 members also appointed to the Budget Committee, members cannot belong to any other committees because they have too much sway with the power of the purse. |
IMO, nobody should be able to sit on more than one of the Council, QA and ComRel concurrently. (edit: fixed grammar for clarification)
Last edited by saellaven on Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6103
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | IMO, nobody should be able to sit on no more than one of the Council, QA and ComRel concurrently. |
I do have to agree, and that's the abuse that I was alluding to.
It's like the president of the US, also being a SC judge and not only a congress person but head of some committee all at the same time.
It's just too damned easy to push some piece of software, regardless of what it is, simply because one wants it, regardless of merit.
AFAIK no tyrant ever voluntarily relinquished their power, they either died or were pushed out at gun/spear point.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | So, are you "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding" or not? You "disagree here with [my] viewpoint" which suggests no, but you "[...] see it as more than a slight misunderstanding", which suggests yes. |
The former leads to the latter; therefore, both are "no" due to misunderstanding. |
You're failing to note that I am responding to what you had written, whereas you hadn't (you just replayed words ... "disagree", "misunderstanding"). I stated you're "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding", which means, underplaying the extent of what had happened, you agree ("as its more that a slight misunderstanding") but yet you "disagree with my viewpoint". The only thing you have to agree/disagree with regarding the above is whether you are "acting is if there were a slight misunderstanding" ... or not.
This is not the first time this has happened, its almost guaranteed, it seems I've done nothing but counter it ... and yet you need me to point at posts where you've been "most nonconstructive"? Take your pick from any post made by you in this thread.
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | In that post nothing is "demonstrated" in regard to the act of "policing others", you are still framing it as "me expressing my opinion and trying to keep things calm, on-topic, etc" but you fail to include *how* it is exercised. |
That exercise is a question: "How are my opinions and/or facts a decision?" |
Further word replay ... I say "exercise", you say "exercise" ... but they are not related in any way. So, tell me, how does asking a question constitute a "demonstration"?
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [...] "These posts" refer to the sum total [...] |
The sum total on my profile is over thousand posts; so, to gain understanding of what you mean, can you refer to a single revealing example post and state why it is most nonconstructive? |
All you need do it read what I was responding to, then the "these posts reveal" should be self-evident:
| TomWij wrote: | | [...] earlier posts in this thread, the reported thread and other threads reveal that I have heard and acknowledged most of them. [... t]he posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear, they are everything but dogmatic and threatening from what can be seen. These posts are asking as well as giving clarifications." |
How about I identify this statement as "nonconstructive" ... why? ... because its patently false.
Last edited by khayyam on Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | I reiterate, this whole pro-systemd/anti-systemd war in Gentoo originated with WilliamH's sole decision as project lead to reject a proven patch in OpenRC and, instead, to use his power and influence on the Council to actively attack OpenRC on the behest of the intentional technological inferiority imposed in systemd. Despite initramfs being fragile, the automated tools to create one being immature at best, and the fact that months later, people are STILL having problems with their system not booting due to initramfs, the Council simply brushed it all off, never did any technical investigation of their own, and followed WilliamH's fraudulent and abusive lead (in the sense that he was dishonest with the Council in lobbying for their votes by not disclosing SteveL's patch). |
Good points were made in the rest of your post; it is indeed quite a concern, but what can we do about it other than ask them to address it? What I think about is that we can fork things. Which is why I'm quoting this particular part above. Are there people willing to contribute to an OpenRC fork and make a version with that patch? With monit support like in the other thread? With ...?
Such fork can probably be get into the tree; however, it raises further concerns about how much such fork can integrate in the tree. It can be received as being better (and therefore have no problem; or perhaps, been seen as the continuation of OpenRC some time from now), it can be received as being as good (and thus wherever OpenRC is mentioned, in like a virtual or so, it would be listed right under it such that you can swap OpenRC for its fork without problems) or it can be received as being worse (which then doesn't make it able to get where it needs to be listed, like in virtuals or so; but why would it be perceived as worse?). It's too early though to tell how it will be received; and thus, I think one should try and see, and draw conclusions from that...
As for technical investigation; yes, I see this happen in other places too, decisions are often more based on what's known about than they are on actual thorough checking of 1) the situation, 2) the task, 3) a solution and 4) the results of such solution at hand. Because of this I think that convincing works out better; and then the question comes to how to convince them, well, I think a fork can do so. Take eudev as an example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread was a split from the report thread and is about your behavior ... can you not use the oportunity of saellaven's post to turn it into a discussion about some *other* subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | I stated you're "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding", which means, underplaying the extent of what had happened |
My correction to that means "more of a misunderstanding" to me; and thus, not "underplaying" thereof. | khayyam wrote: | | So, tell me, how does asking a question constitute a "demonstration"? |
That the question put forward is avoided; and thus, it is demonstrated that the demonstration why the opinion is perceived as a decision doesn't want to take place on request.
See the private message that was send to you: | TomWij wrote: | From: TomWij
To: khayyam
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:58 pm
Subject: Do cats, dogs and other animals hear each other the way they intend to? | khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | Chase-the-tail one decides to play; two sides give a viewpoint which is where the discussion is sufficiently constructive, playing chase-the-tail beyond that results in a discussion loop.
|
TomWij ... not all cats have tails, those that don't often chase the tails of those that do ... just to provide an example of what I think steve means. | TomWij wrote: | Request this in the forum feedback forum, as this is their terrain; the `emerge --info` was suggested as that can be easier to implement and be a more generic approach (as it improves bug reports as well).
|
I'm tempted to read that as a humorious rejoinder but no matter how hard I try I can't make it stick. Sometimes, people speak past each other ... in this case your response reveals that you weren't really listening to what I had to say ... hasn't this also come up in the past? |
Hello there.
Both those responses (and more) are made to get the thread back on-topic; in this respect, it is intentionally speaking past what is off-topic (Yes, it was heard.) to simply end it right away. Naturally, as threads are brought back on-topic; that always comes up for anyone that takes up this functional role in a discussion, anywhere. My impression from your response is that there is a misunderstanding; therefore it causes off-topic humor and non-humor to be brought up. As said, that is off-topic and doesn't bother because what can be said about one person here can also be said about the other person; in the end, who even cares? The cats? The dog.
Given that people continue to make responses in this regard, NeddySeagoon demonstrates very well how this intentionally speaking past what is off-topic works; he goes quite verbal with it by most directly pointing out that the topic is going bad, iotw from on-topic to off-topic. In doing so he brings up that there is an actual topic; as a result, he could yield either a more on-topic discussion or at least an end to the off-topic discussion in that topic. But given that is a verbal approach, the on-topic discussion can disruptively end that way; therefore steering it ourselves can have more fruitful results, as you'll very much note that the context of this thread was very much still quite on-topic.
Can you reconsider this and help us?
Thank you very much. |
What makes this opinion that asks to reconsider and help a decision? | khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | [...] earlier posts in this thread, the reported thread and other threads reveal that I have heard and acknowledged most of them. [... t]he posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear, they are everything but dogmatic and threatening from what can be seen. These posts are asking as well as giving clarifications." |
How about I identify this statement as "nonconstructive" ... why? ... because its patently false. |
What is false about it? Is it false by fact or by opinion? That I show you that I have 1) heard, 2) acknowledged, 3) am trying to clarify misunderstandings, 4) don't do dogmatic / threatening, 5) clarifying; seems as constructive to me. You may very well disagree with me that they are constructive; but if you do, then I would wonder how you see my other posts as the opposite of these mentioned points. In other words, how are those other posts "nonconstructive" and can you give an example? | khayyam wrote: | | This thread was a split from the report thread and is about your behavior ... can you not use the oportunity of saellaven's post to turn it into a discussion about some *other* subject. |
This thread can be considered to be about our behavior and/or more than just that, as it takes two and reflects a meeting of our society; similarly, to turn this discussion to be about some *other* subject, it takes two, and we might very well be in the opinion that this agenda item has come near its end and we can move on to the next one or end the meeting. Do you have something to add to the current agenda item not mentioned before?
Last edited by TomWij on Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:15 am; edited 7 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | As for technical investigation; yes, I see this happen in other places too, decisions are often more based on what's known about than they are on actual thorough checking of 1) the situation, 2) the task, 3) a solution and 4) the results of such solution at hand. Because of this I think that convincing works out better; and then the question comes to how to convince them, well, I think a fork can do so. Take eudev as an example. |
and yet with the ~year old existence of eudev (that didn't have the systemd/udev separate /usr limitations center to the issue*) and a ~2 year old tested and continually updated patch to openrc that WilliamH was well aware of, the Council STILL voted to technologically harm Gentoo at the behest of WilliamH.
Forking is great and all, but when the Council willingly favors a project from one of its own, robustness of other solutions don't matter at all. Certainly SteveL has done the groundwork in maintaining his patch (which is all that's necessary to have a better fork of openrc, process monitoring extensions aside) and many of us have contributing to testing and suggestions on that, but I don't see "euopenrc" hitting the tree.
* I haven't used udev in a while but I've seen ssuominen claim that current udev doesn't have this limitation, which again, goes back to the entire ridiculousness of forcing this vote at the Council simply because WilliamH didn't want to include a proven, working patch in the project he's lead of BECAUSE he chose to intentionally limit the robustness of his project. How much strife in the community has WilliamH and the Council created BECAUSE of their utter unwillingness to take their job seriously because of some desire to hold one's own project back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saellaven wrote: | | Forking is great and all, [...] |
Gentoo is a meta distribution at its core; and thus, if things go awry than what some or most users want, a fork on either package level (as choice) or distribution level (due to the lack of choice) could work out well. We've seen a bit of forking so far (genkernel-next, funtoo, sabayon, ...). As for doing this within the borders of Gentoo itself; becoming a developer, working yourself up to the Council might keep it on the right track. Another way is to voice your opinion across communication mediums.
| saellaven wrote: | | but I don't see "euopenrc" hitting the tree. |
Why? It could hit the tree, given it would be a serious fork. I can help you in proxy maintaining that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | I stated you're "acting as if it were a slight misunderstanding", which means, underplaying the extent of what had happened |
It means "more of a misunderstanding" to me; and thus, not "underplaying" thereof. |
... further word replay ... and further disconnected from the comment made ... the subject you should (under normal standards of discourse) be responding to. I don't see the point in counter it ... why bother.
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | So, tell me, how does asking a question constitute a "demonstration"? |
That the question put forward is avoided; and thus, it is demonstrated that the demonstration why the opinion is perceived as a decision doesn't want to take place on request. |
That's a complete mush of words and logic ... anyhow, let me refresh your memory ...
| TomWij wrote: | | As demonstrated in my previous post, the opinions are in no way deciding or policing over others |
A "demonstration" means that is has been shown to be true, factual, etc ... not the absence of a refutation.
[snip whole bunch of re-quotes of little relevance]
| TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | [...] earlier posts in this thread, the reported thread and other threads reveal that I have heard and acknowledged most of them. [... t]he posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear, they are everything but dogmatic and threatening from what can be seen. These posts are asking as well as giving clarifications." |
How about I identify this statement as "nonconstructive" ... why? ... because its patently false. |
What is false about it? Is it false by fact or by opinion? That I show you that I have 1) heard, 2) acknowledged, 3) am trying to clarify misunderstandings, 4) don't do dogmatic / threatening, 5) clarifying; seems as constructive to me. You may very well disagree with me that they are constructive; but if you do, then I would wonder how you see my other posts as the opposite of these mentioned points. In other words, how are those other posts "nonconstructive" and can you give an example? |
I've constantly had to check your tendency to misdirect, replay words out of context, present false claims, and many other acts of sophistic reasoning ... but you have it that the "[...] posts made here in *this* (and other) forum feedback thread(s) are to make misunderstandings of one another clear" ... that is false. Further, your constantly presenting you contribution as wholely "constructive" when your very method of argumentation is nonconstructive because you bring nothing to the argument (unless you count your numerious sophisms as "something").
Also, "false by fact or opinion" ... excluding the fact that this came from your pen, what could this possibly mean (other than a sophism) ... your trying to *sound* philosophical ... and that is simply *not* your forte. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | This thread can be considered to be about our behavior and/or more than just that, as it takes two and reflects a meeting of our society; similarly, to turn this discussion to be about some *other* subject, it takes two, and we might very well be in the opinion that this agenda item has come near its end and we can move on to the next one or end the meeting. Do you have something to add to the current agenda item not mentioned before? |
No, its about your behavior ... nice try with the "it takes two" but its not going to wash. As for the rest of your statement ... pffft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TomWij wrote: | | saellaven wrote: | | Forking is great and all, [...] |
Gentoo is a meta distribution at its core; and thus, if things go awry than what some or most users want, a fork on either package level (as choice) or distribution level (due to the lack of choice) could work out well. We've seen a bit of forking so far (genkernel-next, funtoo, sabayon, ...). As for doing this within the borders of Gentoo itself; becoming a developer, working yourself up to the Council might keep it on the right track. Another way is to voice your opinion across communication mediums. |
I've said before that, due to the politicking at the organization level, I won't become a Gentoo dev... I'm not going to waste all my time playing petty games because someone wants their ego stroked. It's the same reason why I don't edit stuff at wikipedia - the insiders own the game and will use and create rules to frustrate anyone that comes in with fresh ideas simply because those ideas, even if far superior, threaten the current orthodoxy.
I have considered forking Gentoo myself, but it's a lot of work for one person to maintain... Gentoo has one thing on it's side - inertia. The political structure has undoubtedly caused people to leave and prevented other people, like myself, from joining in the first place. Most devs will admit that the #1 need of Gentoo is more devs to help maintain the tree (and some herds in particular), but nothing is ever really done to change the structure to be more inviting to new devs other than navel gazing. And that, in itself, might be the appeal to some devs, of systemd, in that it overtakes most of userspace, obviating some of the need to have more devs since everything is done the one true way.
| TomWij wrote: | | saellaven wrote: | | but I don't see "euopenrc" hitting the tree. |
Why? It could hit the tree, given it would be a serious fork. I can help you in proxy maintaining that... |
Because I'd like to stay as far away from the political games in Gentoo as possible... not to mention that, though you and I have been getting along better lately, it's going to be a while before I could have the type of constructive relationship with you that proxy maintenance would require.
At the end of the day, I want my systems to just work... and I ran my own LFS type system for almost a decade before finally letting Gentoo automate some of that for me. I don't need to waste time playing politics (in fact, I run a forum dedicated to political discussion, so I don't need to seek out another venue) or getting caught up in debates just for the sake of having a debate. If what I do ends up helping other people, that's great, but I'm not going to mire myself in endless stress because I just want my system to work, I don't need my ego stroked or need to add a line on my resume to try to lend myself more credibility.
But, particularly in this area of Linux these days, that's all that exists is politics - people will talk around technical merits but they never debate the actual technical merits of decisions, they shout past each other or re-re-re-link FUD that's already been debunked. I'm not in high school or college, I have an actual life to live and I'm not going to take away from the quality of my life to play the games. It's pretty ridiculous how much time I've already had to waste in the last year because of other people imposing political decisions on my system and the time I do spend now is mostly meant to prevent even larger headaches from the same crowd in the future.
It's actually a pretty sad state of affairs that things have come to this... and how pathetic is it that we have to talk about maintaining a fork of openrc, over a few line patch, solely because the lead refused to add functionality to it and instead, abused his influence to cripple the entire distro at a political level? I reiterate, how much extra work, wasted time, and animosity was created solely because of him and his arrogance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
saellaven ...
can you please not assit tom in redirecting this discussion away from the subject at hand: his behavior.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomWij
Retired Dev
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1553
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | TomWij wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | So, tell me, how does asking a question constitute a "demonstration"? |
That the question put forward is avoided; and thus, it is demonstrated that the demonstration why the opinion is perceived as a decision doesn't want to take place on request. |
That's a complete mush of words and logic ... anyhow, let me refresh your memory ...
| TomWij wrote: | | As demonstrated in my previous post, the opinions are in no way deciding or policing over others |
A "demonstration" means that is has been shown to be true, factual, etc ... not the absence of a refutation.
[snip whole bunch of re-quotes of little relevance]
[...] that is false. |
Yes, therefore to show it to be true I'm asking for your demonstration to make me understand why you see it as such; I've given my demonstration to demonstrate why it is false, which you have snipped out as irrelevant. Until the requested demonstrate and/or acknowledgement are given, it appears we are done talking and simply agree to disagree; as the lack of demonstration and/or acknowledgment yields repetition and word replay instead of a better understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Forums Feedback
